Tom Jones

With ten Oscar nominations and four wins, how is it possible that I had never heard of Tom Jones before stumbling across it on Netflix?  Granted, 1963 was a while ago, but I can think of a few classic movies from that year --- The Birds, Dr. No, Hud --- that weren't even nominated for the Best Picture award that Tom Jones wound up winning.  Sadly, no one thought to cast a young Tom Jones as the title character in Tom Jones.  You might argue that Tom Jones didn't have commercial success until a year later, but I'm just going to chalk this one up to a casting director with no vision.

Who wouldn't want to see him accept an Oscar dressed like this?

Tom Jones is an adaptation of The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, written by Henry Fielding and published in 1749.  That might not sound like an enticing source for a movie, but Fielding was known for his humor and sarcasm; this period piece is actually a comedy.  The story goes something like this: When Squire Allworthy (George Devine) returns home after many months in London, he finds an infant in his bed.  Naturally curious, Allworthy investigates and concludes that one of his servants, Jenny Jones (Joyce Redman), and his barber (Jack MacGowran) made themselves a loud and leaky reminder of their lust.  Being the mid-18th century, lust was seen as a bad thing, and Allworthy kicked both presumed parents out of his care.  He chooses to raise the bastard as a gentleman and names the little fellow Tom Jones.  Why Tom?  Why not?  It's not unusual.  ***self-inflicted face-slap***

Fast-forward twenty-odd years, and Tom Jones (Albert Finney) has become a kind and fun-loving young man, with a warm spot for any comely lady who is willing to...er...keep him warm?  Despite his many romantic entanglements, Tom is only seriously interested in Sophie Western (Susannah York).  Too bad she's a lady and he's a bastard.  Speaking of bastards, Squire Allworthy's nephew, Blifil (David Warner), hates the affection Tom seems to get from everyone, especially from the squire.  He plots with a few lackeys to get Tom disinherited by Allworthy and forever banished from his land.

200 years later, one of these men will be a Russian spy in Dr. Strangelove

Tom handles his abrupt change in fortune in stride, and proceeds to walk the earth as a poor man, albeit one with enough charm and wits to keep busy and stay healthy.  Meanwhile, Sophie's father and aunt decide that she should marry Blifil, whether she wants to or not.  Will these star-crossed lovers ever find one another?  Well, it's a comedy, so the answer will probably be yes.

The acting in Tom Jones is generally pretty solid.  Albert Finney is surprisingly charming as a young man.  Since my knowledge of Finney comes from the past twenty years, it blew my mind that he ever spoke normally or had a facial texture that didn't resemble a prune.  I don't know if I agree with Sophie's maid that he's "the handsomest man" she ever saw, but there are certainly less likely heartthrobs.  Susannah York was pretty good, too, although a large portion of her role was to balance outrage with lovey-dovey eyes.  Still, I thought she did well with the lead role.  I really enjoyed Hugh Griffith as her father; he was a lot of fun as a boorish, crass, and insensitive squire.

Best line (to a grieving son at a funeral):"Eh, cheer up."

David Warner is fine as the slimy and hypocritical Blithil, as is his fellow-in-sliminess, Peter Bull.  There are a few notable supporting performances by the women in this movie.  Diane Cilento was okay as a lusty peasant slut, Edith Evans was occasionally horrifying as Sophie's hoity-toity aunt, Joan Greenwood was solid as a horny but selfish noblewoman, and Joyce Redman had one of the least sensual dinner scenes ever.  Future Indiana Jones villain Julian Glover also plays a small part as a horrific person.

"My fortune cookie says I will die by Biblical curse...?"

Despite the presence of many, many recognizable actors and five Academy Award acting nominations, this film really isn't about the actors.  It's about the direction.  Tony Richardson took a fairly standard period piece and manipulated its style and tone to make something unique.  The opening scenes are presented as a silent movie, complete with piano music and dialogue cards.  There is a chase scene that is an obvious homage to Benny Hill.  There are freeze frames and bizarre scene wipes.  Richardson shows what is important in the story, not through dialogue, but by silence and ambient noise; Tom and Sophie fall in love during a dialogue-free extended montage (it had to be at least eight minutes long) and the hypocrisy of the "nobles" is shown through extreme close-ups of their savagery while they are hunting.  There are even a few scenes where Tom breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience; the best bit is when he is looking for his stolen money, accuses a maid/hotel owner, and then asks the audience if they saw her take anything from his pants.

Despite the interesting direction (and cinematography), I just wasn't terribly impressed by Tom Jones.  While it certainly is a watchable movie, I expected more from one of the few comedic Best Picture Oscar winners.  My biggest problem was the lack of funnies in the script.  Granted, this film was made in 1963, so the misadventures of a horny guy might have been edgy and shamefully funny at the time, but --- wait, no.  This film was released in the same year Dr. No was, and James Bond is at least as much of a man whore as Tom Jones.  No, I'm afraid that Tom Jones is one of those movies whose humor wasn't that sharp to begin with and has only dulled over time.

There are also a few scenes that simply irritated me.  I was grossed out by the extended eye-fucking Tom and Mrs. Waters engaged in over a forty-course meal.  I don't know why, but watching people flirt with greasy food smeared on their faces makes me nauseous.  The other scene I had a problem with was when Sophie's aunt advises a potential suitor to rape Sophie --- in those words!  Maybe this was just a bone Tony Richardson wanted to throw to the oh-so-important sexual predator audience, but I felt that it was in poor taste; the character who obliges in the rape attempt isn't even important, so he could have been cut from the film entirely and whittled this film down to under two hours long.

Without any lasting humor (maybe it just wasn't slapstick or sarcastic enough for me?), the clever direction appears to be random at times.  Without a sense of purpose, these solid acting performances lose their impact.  All in all, this was an interesting step forward in style for mainstream filmmaking, but that doesn't make it fun to watch in the present.

Don't poke her eye out!

The Exorcist

I didn't watch scary movies as a kid.  I think the first horror movie I ever watched was Scream; I was seventeen or so at the time, watching it at a friend's house, and I remember being very self-conscious about my reactions to the movie.  I didn't want to give myself away by shrieking like a little girl or wetting myself.  For some reason, I imagined horror movies as being genuinely disturbing, the very stuff of nightmares.  Obviously, I got over that presumption.  After a solid month of watching (and reviewing) nothing but (often awful) horror movies this month, I have finally come to the film that was, at one point, the highest grossing --- and some still say, the scariest --- film of all time, The Exorcist.  Will it live up to my childhood expectations for horror?  Let's find out.

Successful actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) has a tween daughter named Regan (Linda Blair).  Shortly after announcing that she has a new (invisible) friend in Mr. Howdy, Regan falls ill.  Not cough cough ill, but things flying around the room ill.  Despite exhibiting surprising strength, an ability to rock her entire bed while she's on it, and speaking in a croaking male voice during these incidents, doctors suspect some sort of brain cancer.  Because cancer makes girls talk like life-long smokers.  When modern medicine turns up nothing, Regan is taken to a psychiatrist.  No help there, but if Regan has thrice weekly visits for the next year, they suspect that perhaps they can improve "no help" to "next to no help."  However, around this time, Chris' director (Jack MacGowran) is found murdered outside the MacNeil home; when Chris checked on Regan, she was asleep, but her window was open to the bitter cold evening air.  Hmm...I wonder...?  When medicine for the body and brain both fail, Chris turns to the church.  Her Catholic priest, like the girl at your party that keeps doing the Mary Katherine Gallagher impression, is obviously flattered at being a third choice and is eager to help.  Unfortunately, this priest, Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller), is one of them new-fangled ones that has a psychology degree and might even be losing his own faith.  Father Damien doesn't believe that the Catholic church will allow him to perform an exorcism, and he is even less certain that it will do any good (except from a psychological perspective).  But he asks his bosses anyway, and is surprised that they agree to proceed, but a rookie like Damien cannot do it alone.  The church decides to team him up with one of their heavy hitters, Father Merrin (Max von Sydow).  The two approach Regan's exorcism just as (pea green) spit is about to hit the fan.  What does this film have in store for these do-gooders?  Projectile vomit of pea soup?  Of course.   Impossible physical feats?  Fo' sho'.  Creative vulgar insults?  Absolutely.  And smoking, every character smoking!

Director William Friedkin has built his career on the back-to-back successes that were The French Connection and The Exorcist, and deservedly so.  Friedkin's direction is apparent throughout the film.  He does a very good job composing visually attractive frames, particularly with the shot of Max von Sydow preparing to enter the MacNeil home, which would eventually become the movie poster.  The special effects are handled well (even better than in Poltergeist, released nine years later) and Linda Blair's make-up is fantastic.The acting is all very good, with Max von Sydow (who has looked 70 years old for the last 40 years) and Jason Miller managing to portray depth and poise from two characters that could easily have been ciphers.  Ellen Burstyn looks positively haggard as the film goes on, which is appropriate, but I felt that her character was a little too over-dramatic in the beginning of the film; yes, she's playing an actress, but even drama queens aren't as moody as she was portrayed.  Linda Blair does a pretty decent job, for a child actor, but I personally believe her character was too immature to be a twelve-year old.  Seriously, a twelve year-old with imaginary friends would get sent to the psychiatrist even without the supernatural powers.  Most of the other actors --- aside from the always reliable Lee J. Cobb --- were okay, but not particularly impressive.  Still, Bursyn, Blair, and Miller were all nominated for acting Oscars, and Friedkin was nominated for direction; all in all, the film was nominated for ten Oscars and took home Best Sound and Adapted Screenplay.  Not too shabby for a genre film.

Obviously, the film was well-made.  Did I like it?  Well...it was okay.  I appreciated the way it was made more than I actually enjoyed the movie, though.  Does that indicate that the film has lost its edge over the years, or am I just jaded after seeing so many gory horror movies?  While it's true that a lot of time has passed since this film came out, and it is a film that suggests more than it shows, I think it still packs as much of a punch as ever.  There are some seriously disturbing scenes, particularly the violent masturbation scene and the first possession scene.  However, I was unimpressed with the classic pea soup vomit and Blair's head turning like it was on a lazy susan; they looked technically fine, but I thought they were the least frightening aspects of the possession.  So, I would argue that the film has aged pretty well and that the more explicit scenes were my least favorites.

The key to a film like this is that, since it is not aiming for brainless gore, it has to build the suspense.  Maybe I have just absorbed the basic plot elements through popular culture, but I was never curious as to what would happen next.  Despite the quality of the film-making, I was never frightened or uneasy (well, the needles and blood spurting at the hospital made me uncomfortable).  The story spends a lot of time getting to the exorcism because it's not a normal Catholic practice; because I knew basically how the story went, the build up to legitimize the act of exorcism felt unnecessary to me. Would this movie had been more effective if I was completely unaware of the storyline?  Probably.  Would it be more frightening if I were a Catholic, like the characters in the movie?  Again, probably; this movie didn't attack my beliefs as much as it did any chance of me eating pea soup. Is any of this the film's fault?  Well, that's debatable.  I think I will give the movie another try next Fall and see if it grows on me.  As it is, I can't argue quality work, even if I didn't particularly care for it.